Comments 8

美国税收战的背后

Nov 26, 2012 Laura Tyson

伯克利——美国近来的总统选举回答了增收是否会纳入长期赤字削减计划的问题。答案是肯定的：两党已经就包括增收和减支在内的“平衡”预算的必要性达成了一致。

但在如何筹集额外收入以及谁该支付差额税收方面依然存在着深刻的政治和意识形态分歧。如果年底仍未就此问题初步达成一致，美国经济将面临6000亿美元自动增税及减支的“财政悬崖”，可能导致国内生产总值下降4%并引发经济衰退。

多数民众认同奥巴马总统的观点，即降低财政赤字应对过去30年来收入和财富增长最多的前2-3%的纳税人增税。奥巴马因此提议在今年底终止2001和2003年对上述纳税人的减税政策，而对其他纳税人的减税政策都将继续执行下去。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 11 in all 11 Comments on this article

sande cohen Dec 6, 2012

The sophisms do not stop. You write: But there is still time to negotiate an agreement that extends these cuts for the bottom 98%, and that contains temporary measures to cap deductions and credits for high-income taxpayers in 2013." The NYTimes has a piece today that says the 250k is after deductions, not before. The 98% you refer to includes then those making up to 330k (before deductions reduce that to 250k) and those making 10cents a year. As the average family income in the U.S. is now 49,500k per year, exactly where did the number 250k come from....?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mark Pitts Dec 4, 2012

Mr. Buffet’s duplicity is obvious to all who understand his businesses.

He has consistently advocated higher taxes on dividends – yet his own company (Berkshire Hathaway) has never paid a dividend.

He advocates higher capital gains taxes for individuals, yet has always practiced a buy and hold strategy that creates few capital gains.

Despite his obvious great value as CEO, he pays himself only $100k per year salary – not surprising since salary is taxed at a much higher rate than investment returns.

He has structured many Berkshire Hathaway holdings within an insurance company where tax treatment for investment returns is much more favorable.

In short, he has structured his whole business life to avoid taxes.
- John Brian Shannon Dec 7, 2012
  
  Just like anyone else does, Mark Pitts.
  
  I see nothing wrong with taking every legal tax advantage, certainly everyone else does the same sort of thing at tax time.
  
  By the way, I enjoy reading your many comments here at PS -- but I disagree with this one.
  
  Regards, JBS
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
G. A. Pakela Dec 4, 2012

Mr. Sokoll,

Thanks for your comments. Let me make a couple of points. The most fundamental concept in economics is how value is established by supply and demand. The law of supply and demand applies to the factors of production as well as goods and services for final sale. Increase the after-tax cost of capital will cause fewer investment projects to be undertaken. My gripe is that many economists ignore that axiom in their quest to justify equity-based tax proposals. And yes, I don't believe in the utility of empirical studies such as the ones cited in the article to direct policy that is at odds with fundamental economic theory. To be sure, you can point to the tremendous benefit for certain business of being located in Silicon Valley or lower Manhattan in spite of being subject to high marginal tax rates, but the business owner contemplating the risks and rewards of a new investment is going to take into account the after tax return in spite of what Mr. Buffett thinks.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
G. A. Pakela Nov 30, 2012

I guess the laws of supply and demand do not apply to investment decisions. That is, the after-tax return on investment doesn't really make a difference in whether that investment is undertaken.

The problem with the so-called empirical studies is that they do not capture what would have happened in the absence of the policy in question. You can compare economic performance in the 1950s and 1960s to the post-Reagan era, including the Clinton years, but the world was fundamentally different in the earlier era, and the U.S. faced little competition in comparison. Moreover, the level of economic growth is largely driven by population growth, labor force participation rates and productivity increases.

Inequality is not as big a problem as lack of opportunity. If you confiscate capital income you are going to reduce opportunity at the margin, right economist?
- Mark Pitts Dec 4, 2012
  
  Mr. Pakela is right. There have been very few distinct "regimes," so the data that goes into the statistical studies are either few in number, or highly overlapping and correlated.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- John Sokoll Dec 4, 2012
  
  Mr. Pakela,
  
  I don't like the way you say, "right economist?", as if SHE'S the one doing it wrong. Economists base their arguments on data and research, like those she cited, and think in terms of correlations. Mrs. Tyson is fully aware of the limitations of "historical experiments". Are you aware of their utility?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
atul baride Nov 29, 2012

This is restoration of the tax structure defunct cause of 9/11 and it's economical impact. The Wound is Gone, so should medicine. allthough Scar remains but as a evidence of an event.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
atul baride Nov 29, 2012

This are dipper fissures within the system and not merely theoratical debates but classical theory of Classes
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mark Pitts Nov 28, 2012

The current tax proposals are just political gimmicks.
Why else would the president spend 95% of his time and effort on raising taxes on the rich, when those tax increases would only cover 5% of the problem (i.e. 5% of the deficit)?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Procyon Mukherjee Nov 27, 2012

Those of us who thought the battle is won have already concluded that it has not even begun; the divide on 'how' to 'who' would take the bulk of the space on the economic debate in the next months, (could be even years) before we see a cogent plan that is not just an academic discourse or a prescription that would cure the patient by killing it.

On the other hand there is sufficient research already in place on the federal spending on infrastructure and the multipliers related to it that could change things in the real space.

The stage is set, but it takes unusually long time to make things happen on the ground, while the slightest of hint makes market move this way or that. It is stale reminder of the usefulness of a maddening penchant for speculation; so be it.

Procyon Mukherjee
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/IYUJkiu/zh;

美国税收战的背后

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

The World Economy Goes Hollywood

Afghanistan’s Forgotten Half

A Three-State Solution for Israel and Palestine?

The End of Postwar Germany

America Must Face Reality on China

A Murder in Gdańsk

Saving Children from Having Children

Korea’s Year of Living Diplomatically

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register